Jeff White said:
Beard's status a police officer has no more impact on this case then if he was a cab driver or a plumber on his way to another job. I suggest you look up Estate of Boliek v. Anne Arundel County, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11182 (Dist. Md. 2005). That case will give you a better understanding of what constitutes acting under color of law.
Beard's status as a police officer has EVERYTHING, repeat EVERYTHING to do with this.
First off, he's a cop twenty-four hours a day and expected to conduct himself as such. If he can't handle that, then he should've turned in his badge.
Second, the minute he identified himself as a cop, everything changed. Problem was, he'd already shot off his mouth something fierce and PROVOKED the situation (something the FBI civil rights and OPR folks tend to dislike). Only way he could even begin to salvage this was to ID himself as a cop. But it was too late by then.
I really don't care if you take exception to it or not. It's the truth. Contrary to what is posted on internet gun forums, it's very rare that someone is charged because the police and prosecutors don't like his looks, the fact he owns firearms or any one of another dozen reasons members like to post. People are only charged when the prosecutor thinks he/she has enough evidence to convict that person. How many years experience do you have working in the criminal justice system at any level that leads you to believe otherwise?
Sigh.
Let's start with over a dozen years as a federal narcotics agent. And sorry, but it's not rare, it's COMMONPLACE.
We arrested suspected drug dealers all the time and held them until we could think of other things to charge them with. Sometimes we'd even go over the surveillance/arrest video to see if the guy had done something we missed so we could throw that charge on as well.
This happens for a variety of reason. One is the the typical wimpass AUSA will plead out or trade off damn near everything you arrest the mutt for. Exception being if A) a political figure is applying pressure one way or the other regarding the case, B) the AUSA has political aspirations and this case--and trying it--could be a boost, and C) if the local/national media has gotten a whiff of it--then the AUSA is either terrified if it's a shaky case, or if it has potential, he walks around with a five foot Viagra boost he's so happy.
Other times, you'll arrest someone just to get them off the street for up to 72 hours. Lots of reasons for doing that as well. You may have a CI that's about to get burned or smoked. You may have new intel that will help you sweat the dealer if you snatch him and put him in an isolation cell for three days. Etc etc.
It is common to charge both parties in a dispute and let the juries decide.
And how many years of personal experience as a police officer or prosecuting attorney do you have to back up this assertion? In my experience, it's done, but it's not the norm. Often a lot of work goes into trying to figure out what really happened and who to charge. Most often both parties are charged in a mutual combat situation, like the one under discussion appears to be, because there is enough blame to go around. Based on the information available in this thread, it appears that both parties share responsibility for this incident.
In incidents involving law enforcement, it's done almost 100% of the time. Except that rather than the grand jury, the cop's "side of the story" gets looked at by IAD/OPR.
If the cop is wrong--even in the slightest--it is normally handled in-house and kept in the family. But there is a difference between department/agency policy violations and criminal violations. If the cop/agent is believed to have committed a criminal violation, then that is turned over to the grand jury and it is the IAD/OPR people who testify against the officer/agent, along with any other witnesses.
I've arrested a number of local, county and state cops before and testified against them to both the grand jury and sitting juries. And believe me, our society DOES hold cops to a higher standard, as they should.
Cops are expectd to control situations--not create them. Bottom line, Beard created a situation, then not only failed to control it but escalated it to the point to where deadly force came into play.
Were I an investigating agent, I'd have his nuts in a vice grip.
This is a PERFECT example of why average Americans lose more faith and trust in law enforcement with each passing year. And it's not fair to the good cops, which is why I'll be damned if I defend the bad ones.
Jeff
